“Slavery, Sectionalism, and Politics in Revolutionary America and the Early Republic: An Historiographical Review, 1960 – 2000” Paper presented at the 2009 Conference of British American Nineteenth Century Historians, Madingley Hall, Cambridge University, UK John Craig Hammond Penn State University, New Kensington The great thirty-year drama that stretched from 1831 to 1861 has understandably dominated historians’ accounts of the politics of slavery and sectionalism in the United States. Historians generally agree that the parallel emergence of immediate Abolitionism and Deep South extremism, punctuated by Nat Turner’s Rebellion, initiated the great sectional conflicts that would overtake American politics after David Wilmot introduced his famous Proviso in 1846. From 1846 onward, state and national politics roiled from one sectional crisis to another, eventuating in disunion and Civil War. By comparison, the politics of slavery and sectionalism in the early republic, the period stretching from the American Revolution through 1830, seem tame, sporadic, even insignificant. Reflecting these differences, the historiography on antebellum and Civil War America is vast and rich, characterized by great diversity in subject matter along with numerous interpretive disputes. Until quite recently – and again, by comparison - the historiography on the politics of slavery and sectionalism for the early republic has been thin, limited in focus to the “founders,” and characterized by consensus on fundamental issues. As recently as 2000, historians could agree on something like a standard narrative that situated Revolutionary America and early republic in the broader history of sectional politics and slavery. That standard narrative went something like this: Revolutionary challenges to bondage resulted in the gradual abolition of slavery in the North, a brief surge of manumissions in the Upper South, and the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. From this high-point of antislavery fervor, the politics of slavery devolved into a long history of slaveholder triumphs. The Constitution granted slaveholders extraordinary political power that allowed them to protect their institution from outside interference. In the 1790s, political antislavery from the North was repeatedly compromised and thwarted by self-interested political calculations and endemic white racism. After 1800, antislavery politics were confined to back-bencher New England Federalists who could pose only token opposition to policies favored by southern slaveholders and supported by their northern Republican allies. Consequently, in the 30 years after the implementation of the Constitution, southern politicians quietly fashioned the United States government into a slaveholders’ republic, expanding both their political power and their control over the institution of slavery. The same three decades saw only brief political battles over the closing of the international slave trade and the expansion of slavery in the Missouri Controversy. Though the Constitution structured later conflicts over slavery, and the Missouri Controversy anticipated the sectional politics of the 1840s and 1850s, historians generally agreed that there was no lasting, significant sectional politics through the 1820s. That the furor displayed during the Missouri Crisis subsided as quickly as it appeared confirmed that few white Americans believed that slavery was a pressing political issue. Only in the 2 1830s did radical abolitionists, Deep South extremists, and rebelling slaves begin to force slavery into the national political agenda.1 Agreeing on the basics of this narrative, for the past two decades historians have sought to evaluate the roles of various “founding fathers” in both blunting the American Revolution’s implicit threat to slavery, and in turn, creating a functionally pro-slavery constitution and a slaveholders’ republic. In practice, this scholarship often amounts to a moralistic debate where historians contrast the antislavery merits of founding fathers such as John Adams and Timothy Pickering against the hypocritical pro-slavery demerits of founders such as Thomas Jefferson.2 In a few moments, Matthew Mason will explain how, over the past decade, historians have systematically challenged this “standard narrative” of the politics of slavery in the early republic and the “founder-centered” scholarship on which it rests. Before then, however, I would like to examine how historians arrived at this narrative, to examine how historiographical trends and the increasingly narrow specialization of the historical discipline combined to produce a remarkably thin, narrowly focused body of literature on the politics of slavery in the early republic. So how did historians get to this point? In the 1970s, the politics of slavery and sectionalism in the early republic seemed an especially promising field of historical scholarship. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, historiographical trends and increased specialization within the discipline combined both to reduce the substance of the politics of slavery in the early republic to disputes between “founding fathers,” and to subordinate the early republic to the Antebellum and Civil War periods of American history. Like all fields of history, the politics of slavery in Revolutionary America and the early republic were fundamentally redefined by the great outpouring of scholarship that began appearing in the 1960s. By the mid-1970s, historians had produced a collection of substantial monographs and articles that both defined the politics of slavery broadly, and recognized the early republic as significant in its own right. Led by David Brion Davis’s volumes on the problem of slavery in western culture and the Age of Revolution, and Winthrop Jordon’s magisterial work on racism in early America, these works established the enduring importance of slavery, anti-slavery, and racism in early American history.3 Historians who focused on the period after 1815 produced a body of literature that seemed just as promising as the work of Davis and Jordan. In a seminal 1966 article, Richard Brown provocatively argued that the entire Jacksonian political system was designed to exclude slavery from national debate. As historians rethought the post-1830 emergence of the sectional crises that initiated the long road to disunion, they located the origins of southern sectionalism in the fifteen year period following the War of 1812. They also placed the defense of slavery at the heart of southern and national politics in the 1820s. At the same time, Abolitionist historians reached back to the 1820s as they searched for the origins of Immediatism. Taken collectively, these works conceived of the problem of slavery in Revolutionary America and the early republic broadly, using social, cultural, legal, and intellectual history in their efforts to understand the politics of slavery from the Revolution through the 1820s. In doing so, they addressed a series of fundamental questions about the perpetuation of black bondage, the solidification of white racism, the halting emergence of antislavery politics, and the concerted effort to create a political system that protected slavery and southern interests.4 3 In the 1980s, however, historiographical trends and the fragmentation of American history into narrow, specialized fields led political historians away from the politics of slavery in the early republic.5 Beginning in the 1960s, historians of the Revolutionary and early national periods produced excellent social and cultural histories of race and slavery. These works typically centered on topics such as the cultural history of race and racism, the social history of African Americans, the origins of Abolitionism in the 1820s, or the cultural and social processes that accompanied emancipation and racialization in the North. Unfortunately, these works reflected the increasing methodological specialization of the historical discipline. Focused narrowly on the social or cultural history of their subject, their authors displayed little interest in speaking to politics, whether at the local, state, sectional, or national level. By the 1990s, historians working on the social and cultural history of race and slavery could eschew politics altogether.6 Political historians only added to the barriers that separated political from social and cultural history, at most using the findings of social and cultural historians to underwrite their argument that the founding fathers’ deep-seated racism thwarted antislavery politics in the early republic. Historians Jeffrey Pasley, Andrew Robertson, and David Waldstreicher, editors of Beyond the Founders, have observed that by the 1990s, scholarship on the early republic amounted to “a social history without politics” or “a political history without the people.” Much the same could be said about the scholarship on race, slavery, and politics, where historians had to choose between histories of race and slavery without politics, or histories of the politics of slavery that focused mainly on the founding fathers.7 While political and social historians talked past each other for much of the 1980s and the 1990s, historians whose main focus was on the political history of the early republic largely abandoned the politics of slavery and sectionalism. Historians had long divided the early republic around 1815. In turn, the period between 1815 and 1825 became something of an indeterminate period, serving both as the epilogue of the founding era and as the